|
REPORT COPYRIGHT VIOLATION IN REPLY
|
|
Message Subject
|
Notes from an "alternate universe". Introduction to a new way of thinking.
|
|
Poster Handle
|
Chaol |
|
Post Content
|
...
Definitely. One thing I've learned is that it's okay to be 'wrong'. What's more important is how useful being 'wrong' was, and how useful the new information will be in future.
Right is wrong from another perspective.
But wrong is right from another perspective.
That's why there is no (absolute) wrong or right.
The question for us is "how useful is this in our current reality?"
Quoting: Chaol And can you always know how useful anything? I believe this is why Chaol says in his world, they interact with everything in their perspective. There are two ways to think about this. In one way, we can divide our perspective and interact with the values in it as though they were separate. In another way, we can realize that "there is only one perspective" and that our perspective can be thought of as one thing rather than an endless array of symbols. I believe his way was the second way. That he saw his reality as being a singular perspective and when he "interacted with everything" it was not to divide the perspective, then interact with the parts. It's interesting you bring this up because when I first started studying this material, I thought I needed to see one perspective. I remember telling him it was one of my favorite quotes. (I had it on a post-it note by my computer.) When I told him this, he told me that is not the most valuable thing for me to learn. I wish I had the post and could word it exactly how he said it, but I do know this is the gist of it. I think he felt the most important thing for us is to understand HOW we perceive. So, interacting with all the parts is one way of seeing how we perceive and once that happens, then maybe we see it as one perspective. I'll go look for that post. I have an idea where it might be. I'm pretty sure it's this thread and prob. two weeks or so after I got here. I agree though, I believe he sees one perspective. It seems to be his method (seeing one perspective) rather than the one he suggests for us. When we understand how and why resistance/conflict enables existence then I suppose would could move on to more advanced ways of looking at it.
|
|
|
Please verify you're human:
|
|
|
Reason for copyright violation:
|
